[jsr-314-open] [jsf2next] PROJECT_STAGE system property configuration

[Cay Horstmann]

It is certainly reasonable to expect dev tools to set the project stage 
to development. I'll ping the NetBeans folks and Ludo who does the 
Eclipse plugin.

Still, it's interesting that your colleague thinks that deployers can't 
be trusted set the project stage. With GlassFish, for example, a 
deployer has to do a whole bunch of other stuff, such as set the server 
password to something other than the default :-)

On 01/14/2010 10:11 AM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
> Gang -
>
> Cay Horstmann wrote:
>> On 01/12/2010 12:58 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
>>> Gah! Cay is right, the spec does say the default is Production. Either
>>> 1) I'm not remembering things correctly, 2) the spec is wrong 3) I've
>>> changed my mind since writing the spec. In any case, this discussion is
>>> apropos.
>>
>> If the spec is indeed not what you folks intended, maybe it would be a
>> good idea to fix it? This could be done independent of the larger
>> issue whether PROJECT_STAGE is adopted elsewhere in Java EE.
>
> My colleague Blake Sullivan asked me to forward these along:
>
>> I agree that we need to provide the best possible development
>> experience. However, as enterprise software, we also want JSF 2
>> applications to be secure by default. To that end, I believe that
>> production is the appropriate default PROJECT_STAGE. Of course, during
>> development, we don't want to have to perform a bunch of additional
>> configuration in order to make the project stage during development,
>> Development. However, our development tools should be able to do that
>> for us. In addition, we really don't want the development tool to do
>> this by changing the init-parameter to Development, since there is
>> always the danger that we'll forget to change the value to Production
>> later and accidentally ship the application with the wrong
>> configuration. We really want the development tool to configure the
>> project stage when deploying just to the development server.
>
> While I understand and share the concerns that Cay and others have
> raised about developer experience, I also somewhat uncomfortable with
> changing the default project stage to development. As Blake mentions,
> our development tools should be able to provide a reasonable experience.
> It is possible that exposing a system property might make this somewhat
> easier to do - eg. the development tool could force the project stage to
> development when launching the development server. FWIW, I also think
> that the introduction of the ExceptionHandler and the requirement that
> all "unexpected" exceptions be routed through the ExceptionHandler
> should be a significant improvement, even when running in
> non-development project stages.
>
> Andy
>
>
>


-- 

Cay S. Horstmann | http://horstmann.com | mailto:cay at horstmann.com